delivered the opinion of the court.
On аpplication for supersedeas. Writ of error to review an order requiring the plaintiff in error tо enter satisfaction of judgment which she had obtained against defendant in error in a replevin suit. The judgment in the replevin suit, which was for the return of the property or its value, was entered March 21,1923. The order requiring entry of satisfaction was made May 9,1927, by Hon. Kent L. Eldred, judge of the county court of Fremont county. Subsequent orders in the case were made by Hon. Edward L. Mott, judge of the county court of Custer county, sitting fpr Judge Eldred.
1. Defendant in error has filed a motion to strike the bill of exceptions. The ground assigned is that the record fails to show a compliance with rule 10 of this court, requiring the fixing of a time following notice of the tender of the bill of exceptions within which written objections may be filed thereto, and that the record here filed shows that the defendant in error has not approved the bill. The record, howеver, shows that the bill of exceptions was duly tendered to the judges, and that thereafter they signed and sealed it. We cannot presume that rule 10 was not complied with, nor that the defendant in error was deprived of the opportunity to make objections to the bill, if he had any to make.
Blatt v. Blatt,
2. Defendant in error moves to dismiss the writ of error upon the ground that the order complained of is not reviewable upon writ of error except in conneсtion with a review of the final judgment in the replevin suit.
*172
He cites decisions of this court holding that the writ does nоt lie to orders subsequent to the judgment, where the judgment itself is not brought up for review. We think this rule does not apply where such subsequent order itself partakes of the character of a final judgment.
Haggott v. Plains Iron Works Co.,
The order complained of in this case, by which the county court wiped out the judgment which plаintiff in error held against the defendant in error, was a final determination of a substantial right, and is, we think subject to review by writ of error. See
Ives v. Phelps,
3. Application for an order requiring entry of satisfaction of judgment was mаde by the defendant in error under section 253, Code of Civil Procedure 1921. The application set forth the satisfaction of the replevin judgment by the tender or delivery to the plaintiff in error, of the prоperty, in as good order and condition as when taken from her. The order of May 9, 1927, granting the apрlication, was made in the absence of the plaintiff in error. On May 17, 1927, plaintiff in error filed her motion to vacate such order, averring among other things that no notice of the application wаs served upon her personally or otherwise or in the manner provided by the Code, and that the court was therefore without jurisdiction to hear and determine the motion. She also made affidavit thаt she knew nothing of the hearing until several days after the order was entered. On July 9, *173 1927, lier motion to vacаte Avas denied. And on November 22, 1927, her motion for a new trial of her motion to vacate was denied. If the order of May 9th was made Avithout legal notice of the application therefor being given to the plaintiff in error, the order was invalid and should have been set aside. Service of the notice upon plaintiff in error Avas attempted under section 411, Code 1921, which provides that such servicе may be made upon a party “by leaving the notice or other paper at his residence, between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening, Avith some member of his family over the age of fifteen years. ’ ’
The affidavit of service (which would prevail over the general recital of the ordеr,
Stubbs v. McGillis,
Application for supersedeas is denied, and the order requiring entry of satisfaction of judgment is reversed.
Mr. Chief Justice Denison, Mr. Justice Bueke and Me. Justice Whitford concur.